1. All the four appeals arise out of a common impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such, are being disposed of by a common order.

2. Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has reduced the penalties to Rs. 1,000 on the respondent who is a stock-broker. The said penalties were imposed on the respondent under the provisions of section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for late submission of the required ST-3 returns. Delay in filing the said returns on the part of the respondent was for 71 days, 37 days, 63 days and 10 days respectively in all the four appeals. Penalties of Rs. 7,100, Rs. 3,700, Rs. 5,300 and Rs. 1,000 were imposed by the original adjudicating authority which were reduced to Rs. 1,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals) in each case.

3. Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR appearing for the revenue submits that in terms of section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, a minimum mandatory penalty @ Rs. 100 per day is prescribed. As such if the respondents were found guilty of contravention of provisions of the Act and were held to be liable to penalty, the minimum penalty imposable was at the rate of Rs. 100 per day in terms of section 77. As such, he submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not, within his powers to reduce the penalty to Rs. 1,000 for delay of 71 days, 37 days and 63 days in filing the return.

4. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the ld. JDR. For the sake of convenience, section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 is reproduced below:

"Penalty for failure to furnish prescribed return. - If a person fails to furnish in due time, the return which he is required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 70 or by notice given under sub-section (2) of that section, he shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than one hundred rupees, but which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues."

6. The department’s contention is that the wordings ‘every day’ appearing after two hundred rupees qualify the expression ‘one hundred rupees’ also. In other words, the revenue’s stand is that section 77 prescribes the minimum penalty as rupees one hundred for every day and lays down the maximum limit at rupees two hundred per day. However, reading of the said section makes it evident that minimum penalty is rupees one hundred and not one hundred rupees per day. The said section very clearly says a sum which shall not be less than one hundred rupees, but which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues. There is no comma after two hundred rupees so as to link the expression ‘for every day’ to one hundred rupees. The absence of comma after two hundred rupees makes it clear that ‘every day’ is qualifying only two hundred rupees. As such, the position which emerges is that the said section has laid down minimum penalty of one hundred rupees and maximum penalty of two hundred rupees for every day’s delay. As such, I do not agree with the views of the department and reject all the appeals.